An Ontario court dismissed Able Insurance's lawsuit against a former producer in a commission dispute, ruling its restrictive covenants unenforceable.
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice released its decision on August 27, 2026, following a dispute that began when Marisol Santiesteban resigned from Able Insurance Group and Able Insurance Brokers on January 13, 2023, to join Sound Insurance Services. Santiesteban had sold commercial and personal insurance as an independent contractor producer for Able since 2013, building a largely Spanish-speaking client base. After she left, many of those clients moved their business to Sound. Able sued Santiesteban, her son Richard Jankowiak, her personal corporation Brookfield Insurance Group, and Sound, alleging breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the producer agreement's restrictive covenants, breach of confidence and conspiracy, and sought damages of $1,359,595 or, alternatively, $926,847.
Justice Robert Centa dismissed every claim against every defendant. He found Santiesteban owed no fiduciary duty to Able: she held no management role, had no signing authority and lacked access to the brokerage's broader financial information, and close relationships with clients do not, on their own, make an insurance producer a fiduciary.
The court also struck down the producer agreement's restrictive covenants. Two clauses barred Santiesteban from dealing with or soliciting Able's clients, one for five years and the other with no time limit at all, and neither was confined to any geographic area. A companion penalty clause demanded a $50,000 fine or a multiple of lost commission, whichever was greater. Justice Centa found the restrictions unreasonable in scope, duration and geography, going well beyond protecting any legitimate business interest of the brokerage.
On the confidentiality claims, the court held that client contact details Santiesteban kept on her personal phone, gathered directly from clients rather than supplied by Able, fell outside the producer agreement's definition of protected information. Sending letters of authorization and a departure announcement to former clients did not amount to misuse of confidential information or unlawful solicitation, the court found, noting that Able called no client witnesses to support its allegations.
Santiesteban's counterclaim succeeded where Able's case failed. She argued Able never honoured a 2017 amendment raising her new-business commission rate to 55 percent from 50 percent. Able countered that the increase depended on Santiesteban opening a satellite office that was never opened, but the court found nothing in the amendment's wording supported that condition, particularly given the producer agreement's entire agreement clause. Justice Centa ordered Able to pay Santiesteban $21,928.10 for underpaid commissions, plus prejudgment interest.
The producer agreement's five-year non-dealing clause and $50,000 penalty provision were both struck down as unenforceable, while its entire agreement clause was applied against Able, holding it to the wording of the 2017 commission amendment it had drafted.
